perfidy

According to the Blog Ecosystem, somtime over the weekend, the Ministry has moved out of the water and onto dry land. We are now Crawly Amphibians. We kick ass. Seriously.

For once, the headline does not give you the hole story. Apparently, someone in Montana never heard the joke whose punchline is, "No, we ride the horse into town!"

Nekkidness. Hand Lotion Fu. No Breasts. Joe Bobb says check it out.

[wik] hat tip to Rocket Jones.

The first two parts of this series are here and here.

In the first post, I discussed how we could quickly and relatively cheaply develop the means to launch people and large cargos into orbit. That is the necessary precursor to any significant endeavor in space. While the methods I outlined would reduce costs to orbit, they would not make them exactly cheap. But they would give us a ladder while others could work on building an escalator. The second post discusses, in broad outline, one idea for developing the life support technology that the Mars mission would require.

Once we have the first step under control, we can begin thinking about the precursors for a Mars mission: the ability to live, unsupported, in space for long periods; a ship that can get us to Mars; and the technology to live and explore on the Martian surface.

How do we get around?

There is much more research to be done on propulsion systems for a future Mars mission. Right now, the two best possibilities are Bob Zubrin's Mars Direct concept and nuclear fission rockets. Zubrin suggests that we send, in advance of the human crewed flight, unmanned gas stations to Mars. These automated facilities would land in a likely spot, and then use solar or nuclear-thermal energy to suck in Martian air and refine it into oxygen and rocket fuel. Only when the gas station signals that its tanks are full will the crewed mission depart. This is a very clever idea, because it does not require that we take every last ounce of food, fuel, water and air needed for the return journey all the way around. There is every indication that Zubrin's idea is feasible, but it would require some solid engineering effort to bring it into being.

The second idea is to use nuclear rockets. In this concept, instead of using the traditional chemical rockets we're all familiar with, hydrogen fuel is passed through an extremely hot, Uranium reactor core. The as the hydrogen passes through the reactor, it is heated and the expansion of the hydrogen gas provides the thrust. This type of rocket is more effective than typical chemical rockets for two reasons: 1, the reactor can operate at a higher temperature, yielding greater thrust; and 2, since only very light hydrogen is used, we need far less mass to get the same thrust compared to burning hydrogen and much heavier oxygen. The first experimental nuclear rocket, called the Kiwi, achieved a specific impulse of over 850 seconds. (Specific impulse is a measure of a rocket's efficiency.) The Shuttle Main Engine is among the most sophisticated and efficient chemical rockets ever built, and has a specific impulse of around 450. With a little effort, there is no question that we could develop nuclear rockets with twice the efficiency of the best chemical rockets.

Either way, the effect is to cut the fuel requirements for a trip to Mars, which makes the whole thing significantly easier to manage. While we research both methods, we can begin planning our first mission beyond the moon. To prepare for the Mars mission, we should have some experience with long duration flights. We can do a dress rehearsal of the Mars mission by mounting an expedition to one of the Near Earth Asteroids. These asteroids are small bodies of rock or metal that have orbits that cross Earth's. Some of these asteroids are very close to Earth, at least in terms of how much fuel we need to burn to get to them. Rather than a three-year mission to Mars, we can plan a one-year mission to an asteroid.

There are several advantages to an NEA mission. First, we get to test much of the hardware for a Mars mission on a shorter mission. Second, we can test the propulsion, guidance, system integration, and construction of our space ship without being held up by delays in either the life sciences or surface exploration programs. A shorter mission means that if need be, we could do the whole thing on canned air and food in toothpaste tubes if necessary - though obviously we would want to test whatever life support technologies have emerged from the lab described in the previous post. Also, we won't need to worry about complicated tasks like refueling on Mars' surface, aero-braking, etc., that a full Mars mission would require. Third, it will provide good science - asteroids are remnants from the formation of the solar system, and will tell us much about that history. Further, geological assays will tell us how easy it might be to mine or otherwise develop asteroids for commercial uses. All in all, it would be a good work up to prepare us for our ultimate goal of reaching Mars.

Whichever method - chemical or nuclear - the NEA mission will be both a useful test of Mars mission technology and skills and valuable in its own right for prestige and scientific gain. 

The first part of this series is here.

In the previous post, I discussed how we could quickly and relatively cheaply develop the means to launch people and large cargos into orbit. That is the necessary precursor to any significant endeavor in space. While the methods I outlined would reduce costs to orbit, they would not make them exactly cheap. But they would give us a ladder while others could work on building an escalator.

Once we have the first step under control, we can begin thinking about the precursors for a Mars mission: the ability to live, unsupported, in space for long periods; a ship that can get us to Mars; and the technology to live and explore on the Martian surface.

Living in Space

The Space Station is the second American experiment in living in space. (We allowed the first attempt, Skylab to burn up on reentry because we had stopped using disposable rockets before the shuttle was operational.) The space station will have value in the near term as a way station in orbit – a place for crews to rest, to assemble other vehicles for other missions, and a transshipment point for crews and supplies heading from the earth to the moon. As such, it will eventually need to be expanded, possibly with components from Shuttle-C vehicles, or with components launched directly from earth. Because of the constant comings and goings, and due to the need to use the ISS as an orbital construction site, it will not be suitable for experiments in long duration survival without outside inputs of supplies and so on.

To begin to solve the problem of living in space as the crew of a Mars mission, we would need to set up a separate laboratory to develop the technology needed to achieve self-sufficiency for periods of one to two years. This laboratory would be another orbiting space station, located near the ISS in case of emergency, but designed from the outset to take in a crew and remain isolated for a period of months, and then years as they test the equipment and techniques that will eventually keep the Mars crew alive. The philosophy behind this facility would have to be one of constant build/test/rebuild/test. Since there is little chance that we’d get it right in one, we should allow for the need to slowly and incrementally refine our knowledge, in conditions closely resembling the eventual mission.

The inhabitants (or inmates) of the lab would research closed cycle life support systems, growing food in space (and eating it), the effects of freefall on the human body and a thousand other needful things. While we branch out to other missions – on the moon, or elsewhere – we will have this laboratory constantly increasing our knowledge of how to survive and thrive in space. It will take years to prepare for the final departure of the Mars mission, and this laboratory will be working the whole time without holding up any other aspect of the preparations. (And naturally, this orbital facility would be backed up by many more researchers and engineers on Earth.) Some links: space station life support, Plant based life support, and an overview.

Yesterday President Bush announced a plan to "explore space and extend a human presence across our solar system." My initial reaction to the speech was one of general disappointment, with a few small slivers of hope. Disappointment because the plan sounds like many previous plans that have amounted to little more than wasted money and wasted opportunity. Disappointment because the timeframes are very long, and the plan has little focus.

Slivers of hope, because at least it is now the established policy of the United States to extend a human presence across the solar system, and more importantly the plan does not make any statements that threaten to extinguish the small candle of private space endeavors. Of course, it does not incorporate them, which is another disappointment. As I look around the blogosphere, intelligent commentators have expressed similar sentiments. Rand Sindberg, Joe Katzman over at Winds of Change, and Jay Manifold of A Voyage to Arcturus. For a good discussion of the rationales behind space exploration, see Laughing Wolf's take.

There are several problems with the plan the President outlined. First, if the Shuttle is going to be retired by 2010, but the new Crew Exploration Vehicle will not be available until 2014 at the earliest; what are we going to use in the intervening four plus years? Second, this CEV is intended to transport crew from the surface of the Earth to Low Earth Orbit, and from LEO to the lunar surface. It also might be intended as a crew habitat on the moon and part of a Mars mission as well. It is unlikely in the extreme that a vehicle can be designed that will satisfy all of these requirements; and even if one is designed, it will likely have fatal flaws like those of the shuttle. Third, there is no mention of developing a heavy lift vehicle, which would be necessary for most workable concepts for lunar development or trips to Mars. Fourth, the design timeframe for a Mars mission would stretch over six presidential elections and 13 congressional elections. I don't see how any program can maintain focus over this long a period in the face of that much politics. It seems inevitable that it will drift off into waste and endless redesign as many other programs have in the past.

There are other objections to the mission assumptions. Why are we planning a return to robotic exploration of the Moon? We have after all already walked on the moon, and there are currently orbiters circling the moon that should be capable of mapping out landing sites. Why is a human return to the moon placed more than a decade in the future? We managed to get to the moon in less than a decade, starting from scratch over forty years ago. I should think that nearly half a century of progress in computers, materials, engineering, and science along with the knowledge of how we did it the first time should reduce that timeline significantly. (Granted, cost certainly is an object this time around. Nevertheless....) Why are the Moon and Mars named as the only destinations? A mission to a Near Earth Asteroid would provide a shorter, but still long duration mission; enabling us to test our ability to survive away from Earth without worrying about the problems of landing on a planet. Further, such a mission would have the added benefit of providing some really good science and experience that will certainly come in handy as we move out into the solar system.

With these thoughts in mind, how should we go about getting to Mars?

First, we need to have a clear idea of what it takes to get to Mars: A Mars mission will necessarily be a long one, in all likelihood well over a year on the inside. There is no possibility for rescue in the event of a mishap, which puts additional pressure on planners. It takes a significant amount of energy to get there, slow to enter Mars orbit, and then land. New technologies will have to be developed to allow us to live on and explore the hostile environment of Mars' surface. And finally, we need to be able to get into Earth orbit in a safe, reliable and relatively cheap manner, or else all other considerations are moot. Most of the cost of the Bush Sr. Mars plan in the early nineties was driven by the astronomical cost per pound to orbit. Reduce that price, and things begin to be possible. So, we have in front of us several tasks that need to be addressed:

1. Design, build and test effective, safe and cheaper means of getting to LEO.
2. Learn how to survive without outside inputs of supplies for several years in space
3. Design, build and test an interplanetary spaceship capable of delta-v on the order of a couple km/s.
4. Design build and test the equipment the explorers would use on the Martian surface.

Each of these programs could be started simultaneously, and could run concurrently. As we will see, the technologies developed in these programs can be tested separately, and finally combined in a full-scale Mars mission.

Earth to Orbit The first and most crucial component of any plan to get to Mars, or indeed to anywhere beyond the surface of the Earth is to develop more effective ways to get to Earth orbit. The major flaw of the space shuttle is that it is an attempt to meet too many mission goals simultaneously. We would be better served by a variety of vehicles; each specialized to meet one mission profile. In the near term, there are three basic mission profiles:

1. Crew transport
2. Satellite and regular resupply missions to the space station
3. Heavy lift

There is little need and great expense in launching the 150,000lb. Shuttle orbiter merely to get seven humans into orbit. Our first goal should be the rapid design and testing of a new crew vehicle. There is a significant body of research already in existence, we should merely choose the most cost effective means of getting people into (and back from) orbit. The most likely candidate, at least in the short term, would be to design something along the lines of the Orbital Space Plane that NASA was talking about last fall. Launched on a reliable, disposable, multistage rocket such as the Atlas or Delta, this vehicle could carry several astronauts into orbit, and reenter the atmosphere much as the shuttle does. Advances in materials technology should make this vehicle reusable - at least for several missions. The OSP would be much smaller and much simpler than the Shuttle orbiter, and as a result should be much cheaper. An OSP docked to the space station could also serve as a emergency crew return vehicle as well. A vehicle as simple as this should take no more than a year to develop, given even remotely adequate program management. This is not groundbreaking technology, and should require mostly off the shelf components. If we developed this fast enough, there should be no need to reactivate the shuttle fleet. Our primary goal should be a first launch of an OSP by early 2005.

Initially, several of these vehicles could serve our needs to get astronauts into orbit. As our space endeavors grow, more could be constructed. Once launched, the base version would be capable of supporting its crew for several days - providing air, water, food and shelter. It would have a retro rocket that would allow the vehicle to de-orbit and come back to earth. While we are using the OSP, more advanced crew vehicles could be designed to further reduce costs and increase efficiency. But it would not require us to go without a crewed vehicle for any length of time, and while allowing us to retire the unsafe and inefficient space shuttle.

With a little forethought, the design could be made more useful. If allowances are made for wingless versions, and for the attachment of service modules, the same vehicle could serve as a template for a whole line of space vehicles, easily adapted for different roles. A wingless (and lighter) version could be lofted into orbit, mated to a modular service module. The service module would contain a more powerful rocket, fuel tanks and additional life support capability. This vehicle could then be used within Earth orbit as a utility vehicle, taxi or tugboat. If the service module included a small robotic arm, the OSP would become a construction vehicle. Further, the service module would turn the OSP into an Earth-Moon shuttle. Without the need to reenter the earth's atmosphere, or to land on the Moon, the OSP could transfer crew and small cargoes between Earth and lunar orbit. Thus, one vehicle would serve many needs without the massive over-design we see in the shuttle.

For satellite launch and regular resupply missions, we should emulate the Russians and use disposable rockets. Our Delta and Atlas rockets are reliable and not too expensive, at least in the short run. Without the space shuttle, more launches would go to these platforms, and prices should come down somewhat through economies of scale. As a enhancement to this general scheme, any restrictions on American companies using these rockets for private launches should be lifted. Developing a commercial launch industry, even with "primitive" disposable rocket technology, is only to the good. As with the crewed vehicles, we can continue design efforts for more advanced vehicles while using what we have.

The final mission profile is much easier to achieve than many would think. For decades now, ideas have been floating around for Shuttle Derived Vehicles. (Go here for a nice overview.) Essentially every time we launch the shuttle, we are using a heavy lift launcher. The shuttle orbiter weighs over 150,000lbs, and all of that is technically payload. Add in the nearly 50,000lbs of payload that the orbiter carries, that runs to quite a load. If we eliminate the orbiter, nearly all of that becomes useful payload.

Of the several schemes that have been proposed, the Shuttle-C idea is closest to reality. This system essentially replaces the orbiter with a cargo pod. The back of the cargo pod is identical with the orbiter's "Boat-Tail" and contains standard shuttle engines. In front of this is a thin, lightweight shell that would protect the cargo during launch. The payload capacity of the "C" is two to three times larger than with a standard orbiter, and costs would certainly be no more than a standard shuttle launch, as we avoid the expensive refurbishment that the orbiter goes through after every launch. There is no reason that I am aware of that we could begin launching Shuttle-C's in less than a year or two, as absolutely no new technology is required, and the redesign involves only an unscrewed cargo shell.

Once we have the Shuttle-C operational, we drop the per pound cost to orbit by at least a factor of three, and make possible launches we could not have attempted previously due to payload constraints. We could expand the space station if necessary, and launch the components for lunar bases and interplanetary missions. And again, while we are using the Shuttle-C, we can be designing more efficient follow-ons. The Shuttle-B would have a similar configuration, but would use cheaper engines designed for disposable rockets. More involved redesigns could use more Solid Rocket Boosters for even greater payload, or a wide variety of other variations.

(And of course, with some forethought, some of these components can be made more useful. The Shuttle-C cargo pod could conceivably become new pressurized living space, needing only retrofitting with furnishings. The perfectly functional shuttle main engines could be reused. The External Tanks could be brought into orbit and used as pressure space or fuel depots. Endless possibilities.)

The amazing thing is that with a little effort, and a willingness to actually build and test rather conduct endless studies; most of this hardware could be operational within a year or two, and none of it requires any new technology whatsoever. Once we have a new transportation infrastructure, we can go back and come up with better vehicles - or better yet, request bids for new vehicles from private industry rather than design them within NASA. These vehicles would allow us to almost immediately expand our presence in Earth orbit, and begin to gain the skills we will soon need further out. They would allow us to launch the hardware that we will use to return to the moon in style, rather than via robotic proxy. There's no reason we can't have a moon base by the end of the decade. I'll tackle the next three tasks in the next couple posts.

In a world exclusive, Drudge is reporting that Clark, contrary to his statements in recent debates he has not always been against the war. In fact, in testimony before congress just two weeks before the Iraq resolution was passed, Clark had this to say:

"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002.

"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution."

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."

More Clark: "And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

Clark explained: "I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It' s normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat."

This is rather dramatically different from what he's saying now. What are the reasons for the turnabout? The obvious guess is that he switched to an antiwar tack for purely political reasons - and to eat into Dean's base within the Democratic party. What this says about his character, I leave as an exercise for the reader.

Based on the early reports, I am disappointed. My eight month old son will be out of college before the earliest date we imagine being on Mars. We might not even be back on the moon until 2020, and they're talking about robotic missions to scout the way to the moon. Jeebus! We've done that, we've been there! Just go back for Chrissakes. At most, put up a lunar orbiter with a really good camera to pick a landing site.

Also, I am very dubious about this crew exploration vehicle. Something that launches from the Earth and lands on the moon does not sound smart. I'll do some more research, but this doesn't sound like a bold plan to explore the cosmos.

By way of TL Hines, Writer, we hear of a practical joke of quite monstrous proportions. Yahoo Entertainment News reports that a disgruntled Japanese Tourism Official, known only as M.L. Tanaka has painstakingly created a faux Japanese-English phrase book that gives dangerously incorrect English translations of common phrases.

Among the nearly 2300 incidents reported to the Japanese Embassy:

• A 29-year-old Tokyo man visiting San Francisco for the first time meant to ask a female store clerk, "May I please have film for my camera?" But what he actually said was, "Would you place your copious breasts in my mouth?" He was slapped in the face, then got tossed out by the manager.
• Four family members from Osaka were thrilled see their favorite American singer coming out of a ritzy store in Beverly Hills. While waving frantically, they shouted out what they believed to be, "We love you so much." Unfortunately, what they really said was, "We're here to take your head." The four were arrested and detained for six hours by police.
• A 45-year-old tourist from Okinawa looking for the legendary Apollo Theater in Harlem thought he was asking a group of young men, "I am lost. Which way is uptown?" In reality, he said, "I know martial arts. May I kick your ass?" He was chased five blocks before being rescued by police.

Five blocks. In Harlem.

"The man who compiled this dictionary clearly went out of his way to wreak havoc," says New York hotel concierge Jacqueline Porseman, who arranges tours for many VIP guests from Japan. No kidding. Be kind to the next Japanese tourist who respectfully asks to kick your ass, for he knows not what he does.

... and pretty soon you're talking real money. Before we have all the details on the President's bold plan for space exploration I'd like to make one comment about the objections that are already being raised.

One billion dollars. It sounds a lot like Dr. Evil if you say it right. But spread over five years, this is chump change to the federal government. In this article, Stephen Moore of the very conservative Club for Growth (and someone whose economic thinking I generally admire) says that the new program is a "total fiscal absurdity."

Well, I call bullshit. If the liberals and old people can have $400 billion for drugs, well I want a goddamn flag on Mars for .25% of the money needed to keep grandpa in viagra.

It is all well and good to provide for the needs of our citizenry, and to build bombs to smite those that offend us. But we can spend a little (relatively speaking) to do something that merely expands the horizons of our knowledge, inspires us with pride in accomplishing something truly unprecedented, and lays the groundwork for our grandchildren's exploration of a boundless frontier.

Screw you, penny pinchers.

[wik] Of course, there are also very real benefits. There are the nifty technological spin offs. There is the pleasing thought that this will maintain our strategic dominance of space in the face of possible Chinese or even European interference. Also, it keeps us at the cutting edge, and assures that all the smart people will keep coming here to work with the smart people already here, and keep us on top. And don't forget, condos on Mars will piss off the environmental wackos no end!

[alsø wik] Johno comments,

"But I'm a sentimental man and place a LOT of stock in grand historic gestures of combined human enterprise. We can either embrace the stars, or turn our backs on them. It's this dicking around in low-earth-orbit with expensive and delicate experimental machinery that I can't freaking stand. "

Too true. As I commented over at Insults Unpunished, the space station and shuttle were entirely useless unless there was a large goal, or at least enterprise in space. Its like building a billion dollar greyhound bus to travel back and forth to a four billion dollar bus station in the middle of Death Valley. Unless we go to the moon or planets or asteroids, or actually create a "there" in orbit ourselves, neither of these expensive technological gimcracks have any purpose or utility.

People who favor robotic exploration go on and on about scientific bang for taxpayer buck, blah blah blah; but they can never answer the question, "well can your robot plant a fucking flag on Mars, and feel the exhilaration that every man on Earth can identify with?" The answer is no. Grand Guestures are expensive, but they are grand; and no penny pinching, cost cutting bureaucrat will ever get them for us.

Steve, over at Begging to Differ, reports on a pretty good idea: Creating an Iraqi Oil Trust and giving shares in the trust to all Iraqi citizens. This would resemble the Alaskan Oil Trust, where all state oil revenues are pooled, and then dividends paid to Alaska residents. The difference here would be that the shares could be bought and sold, so that Iraqis would in effect have ownership of the oil, and would have more freedom do decide what to do with their shares - sell them, keep them, whatever.

This is a good idea on several levels. One, it gives the Iraqi people on an individual level, a stake in the country's wealth and future. Two, it gives them a clear title on a source of wealth that they can use as they see fit. Three, it would remove or at least mitigate one of the major sources of corruption in resource rich third world ountries - government control of vast wealth. I approve heartily, and this could be something that materially assists the formation of a civil and democratic soceity in Iraq.

Also on that estimable webpage, is a post by Greg linking to and commenting on a list of the fifty most underrated recent movies. This is an interesting list, and as I informed Greg, I have seen 36 of them, and actually own 15 of those. The remaining 14 will give me a goal, now that I can no longer easily go over to the multiplex thanks to the arrival of Sir John-the-can't-be-quiet-in-a-movie-theater. I have seen one, one movie in the last eight months. I used to see at least one a fortnight. Go over and see my additions to the list.

Not Fooling Anybody, recommended by the inestimable Lileks, is an amusing compendium of places that have been awkwardly and none to subtly transformed. While the site seems to have entirely missed the pervasive, "Hey that used to be a Red Barn" phenomenon that you so often get in Ohio, they did have this comment to make about my lovely home state: 

CREATIVE INTERPRETATION: Convenient adaptation of drive-thru for alcohol purposes; very Ohio  

which is of course, at the bottom of the ocean.

Go here, and be appalled. I won't actually put this on my webpage. But when some people complain that certain other people are questioning their patriotism, then this might be the reason why.

Michael Totten has an interesting post up concerning a marked trend among Democratic presidential candidates: pandering to the left. As a conservative and relatively staunch Republican, I have been dismayed at the complete lack of potential in the Dem candidates. Dennis Miller said a while back that he hadn't seen a starting nine like this since the '62 Mets. (Interestingly, according to this statistical analysis, the '62 Mets are only the fifth worst team in history. Surprisingly, the Indians do not appear in the bottom 30. Surprisingly, the '54 and '95 Indians are ranked 8th and 9th even though they lost the World Series, and the '48 Indians who did win the series are only ranked 25th. Go Tribe!)

Wesley Clark is a non candidate in every respect save one - he is actually running for president. He made the incredibly bold statement that if he were president, we'd all be safe from terrorism. His focus on internationalism will deter Muslim fundamentalists from attacking us. This must make the French feel better, at least someone thinks that listening to them will actually enhance security.

A good friend of mine in the military told me that Clark is not highly regarded by those in uniform. They give him good marks for bravery back in Vietnam, and apparently he is a good planner. But as for leadership and character, he is held in very low esteem indeed. It is significant that not one retired admiral or general has endorsed him, and many have launched some rather nasty broadsides. (Still serving officers are not allowed to endorse candidates.)

Clark has no real agenda that I can detect, aside from wanting to be president. This is why it is very easy for him to listen to his minders and spinners, and take the leftward steps to try to get momentum in the early running. However, nothing that he is saying now gives us any clue as to what he thinks, and all of it will assuredly be held against him by Rove should he actually get the nomination.

Lieberman is the only Democrat that has a chance in the election - considering that polls indicate that national security is still very important to the public, and that the public supports by a wide margin the invasion and occupation of Iraq. No Democrat has any serious credibility on national security, least of all Dean; but Lieberman has absolutely no chance of getting the presidential nomination. Barring catastrophe, Bush will win by a large margin come November.

[wik]I worry that the Democrats are imploding, and imploding in a significantly more serious way than parties do from time to time. All of the rhetoric that we are hearing, with the partial exception of Lieberman, is aimed at the left half of the democratic party. Like Totten says, this is going to scare the middle toward the right. And Bush is doing nothing to alienate the middle - and although this irritates the conservative core, very few (like spoons) are going to withhold their votes from Bush come November. This is a recipe for a blowout.

However, the problem for me as a conservative is that without a healthy Democratic party that takes things like national defense and the opinion of the middle of the country seriously, there is nothing to keep the Republicans on their toes. They have not been called the stupid party for nothing - only lately the Democrats have been even more stupid. A weak opposition leads to prescription drug benefits and many other things that piss me off, and decided spoons to look for someone else to vote for. (No word yet on who he's chosen, though.)

Via Pejman and the Corner, comes this:

Who saw Paul O'Neill on Today this morning? He's backtracking from all the Suskind-CBS hype attacking the president. He says he wishes he could retract his "blind and deaf" remarks, and says he'll vote for Bush in the fall because he doesn't see anyone else as "capable." With Katie as with Lesley Stahl, you see liberal reporters trying to put words in his mouth. The more he talks, the more it shows he doesn't fit their anti-Bush mold any more than he fit Bush's.

A commenter on Pejman's site had this to say:

Timing the wait until the first accusation that the Bush administration somehow 'got to' O'Neill on my... mark.

My current estimate: tempest in a teacup.

Despite my lengthy absence from these august pages, I have not forgotten the challenge I laid at my own feet. My task was to examine the various problems we face (or don't, as the case may be) with the environment, and to outline a course of action to deal with them.

I was able to do some reading on the matter last month, and the problems boil down to several claims from the environmentalists:

• Pollution
• Resource Depletion
• Loss of Biodiversity/Species Extinction
• Overpopulation/Famine
• Global Warming

Here, I will deal with two of them, and the rest will follow shortly.

Resource Depletion and Overpopulation/Famine have declined in importance, even amongst environmentalists over the last couple decades in large part because they have proven to be untrue. Back in the early seventies the Club of Rome and people like Paul Ehrlich famously predicted famine, running out of natural resources and generally the end of the world. They predicted that it would have happened by now. That this has not come to pass (though I forgot to check Drudge this morning, it might have happened. Nope, I checked and the world hasn't ended) should have chastened them. But Ehrlich among others is still selling his heady brand of doom.

The most recent demographics indicate that the world population will peak somewhere around mid century at about 8 billion people, and thereafter begin to decline. The low end UN projection in fact predicts a peak at less than 8 billion before 2040, and then decline. Since this is only about a 25% percent increase, it seems unlikely that this will cause great chaos in the coming decades. Even without GM foods, recent advances in agriculture (at least in the wealthier nations, though slowly spreading) seem adequate to handle this increase.

Given that there is likely going to be enough food, and that in the last couple centuries most if not all famines have had political causes (Ukraine, China, Biafra, Ethiopia, Somalia) rather than purely environmental ones, I think it is safe to say that this is really not an issue we need to worry about, at least on the big scale.

For the other, resource depletion, we face a similar non-crisis. Most of the projections that led to the Club of Rome and others to declare that we would run out of x resource in y years were based on known reserves of x and current consumption rates. The fundamental problem with these projections is that they are based on known reserves, or worse on proven reserves. This is akin to being hungry and in a large warehouse with a flashlight. You shine the beam around, and see food. You feverishly calculate that you will run out of the food you see in front of you in three days. Certain starvation! Of course, as you eat the food in front of you, you can shine the flashlight around to look for more food. Of course, you might have to walk further to get it, or climb up the shelves, but it is there.

So it goes with minerals and petroleum and other things we dig out of the ground. Despite increasing consumption, proven reserves of every commodity metal are larger than they were when the Club of Rome first published its predictions. Also, prices for most of these are lower - indicating that they are trending less rather than more scarce. The Earth is a very, very big place, and we inhabit only the surface. There is little likelihood that we will ever "exhaust" the Earth of resources. (And if it ever seemed likely that we were about to, there are always asteroids...)

There are a couple things that we can learn here. One, always take doomsday scenarios with a grain of salt. Don't ignore them, but certainly don't begin screaming that the sky is falling. Two, to the extent that these problems ever were problems, technology was the solution. Better agricultural technology has vastly increased our ability to grow food. The Green revolution was happening at the same time that Ehrlich was prophesying doom. The new revolution in GM foods promises to similarly increase our ability to produce sustenance for the teeming hordes. A side benefit of these new techniques is that the land needed for farming is actually reduced - which means that where the new style farming is adopted, there is less pressure on marginally arable land, which means less desertification or encroachment on rainforests. In the United States, there is more forestland east of the Mississippi than at any time since the early 1800s.

A primary reason that population is expected to begin falling is that generally speaking, the wealthier a nation it is, the less children its citizens will have. Europe and Japan are facing a demographic crisis already as their birthrates have fallen below replacement levels. And large areas of east Asia have apparently crossed the line into lowered fertility rates. Of course, the draconian policies of the Chinese communist government have played a role here as well. If we continue to get wealthier, the population will eventually decline. Though this may cause other problems…

The same is true of mining. New technology means that we can affordably (profitably) get at resources that would have been completely unfeasible twenty years ago. So, reserves are larger. And the new methods are almost universally less damaging to the environment. The oil drilling that was proposed in the Alaskan ANWR reserve would have tapped the oil of a region the size of South Carolina from a facility no larger than Dulles Airport outside Washington. Strip mining is becoming a thing of the past, and in general things are getting better. And it is wealth and technology that is making them so.

So, for these two issues, I hereby declare them to be non-issues, and needing no corrective action of any kind.

In the next few days, I will tackle the other issues. Stay tuned.

By way of a Spoons post back in December, we learn of an intriguing new meme invented over at Samizdata:

Why not call the EU the Belgian Empire?

Heh.

In reading through the backlog of posts that I ignored for over a month, I found this gem. Pete Rose has always annoyed me, largely because he played for the Reds. Also, because he is an egomaniacal shitranch.

Once, I heard a radio sports guy say something like this:

If it wasn't for baseball, Pete Rose would either be working a gas station, or robbing it.

While Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Darryl Strawberry, Gaylord Perry, Doc Ellis, and David Wells were certainly not good role models for the kiddies, the fact is they did not commit the cardinal sin of baseball. Ever since the black sox episode back in '19, screwing with the integrity of the game is the biggest no-no. That's why Shitranch Pete is not in the hall, while some who are arguably worse people (Cobb, for instance) are. Rose picked the wrong sin.

If the President announces that he wants to send a mission to Mars, I will be happy. However, there are many things that could taint that happiness. If the time frame is twenty years, it will mean that the announcement is a publicity stunt. There is no way that a twenty-year program will happen. It will just result in endless expense on paper studies and research programs, like we had with the space station; and likely end with an ill-conceived and poorly executed mission, like the space shuttle.

If the reorganization of NASA that is being hinted at is underwhelming, then I think that again, it is mere publicity. The lion's share of money that NASA has been given has been spent on two questionable ventures - the ISS and the Shuttle. NASA likes to point to these as its major accomplishments, but anyone who thinks even moderately long on the matter will realize that for billions of dollars of our money, we have gotten this:

1. An inefficient and costly space transportation system that has resulted, so far, in the deaths of fourteen American astronauts.
2. A space station that is inadequate for any conceivable useful purpose, and whose primary justification has always been that it is a destination for the shuttle.

The real successes, post Apollo, have been in the unmanned space exploration side of NASA: Pioneer, Voyager, Galileo, Pathfinder/Sojourner and many others. For a fraction of the cost, these missions have produced several orders of magnitude more scientific information than the manned space flight program, at a tiny fraction of the cost.

Many have used this fact to argue against manned space exploration, but this does not necessarily follow. Part of the problem is NASA, which has evolved into a typical government bureaucracy. The shuttle and the ISS look like committees designed them for the simple reason that committees did design them. Part of the problem is that NASA was never given a mandate for a follow up goal after the moon. NASA scientists and engineers had an impressive array of follow on missions in mind in the early seventies, but the Nixon and subsequent administrations squelched those dreams quickly, and much of the heart went out of NASA.

Given a proper goal and a short but realistic timeframe, NASA could do the job of getting us to Mars. However, we could easily run into the same problems as we did after Apollo, namely having achieved something truly incredible, only to find that in the process we did not create the means to repeat the feat, or even to use technologies for other purposes. Any grand scheme for Mars exploration would require that this be taken into account.

I have argued in this venue that NASA should be dismembered. On the eve of a possible Mars announcement, this is truer than ever. Significant reform for NASA means dismemberment. (You can see my thoughts about this here.) If we attempt to go to Mars the way we have traveled to Low Earth orbit, it is a guarantee of enormous expense and likely many deaths.

There is, however, some hope. Bush has talked about private space initiatives before. If, as part of his plan, he hopes to have private industry take over (or at least design the vehicles for) travel between Earth and the Mars mission assembly site, we have hope. If the plan includes testing equipment on the moon, and building an infrastructure that allows relatively cheap and reliable movement of people and supplies between earth orbit and the lunar surface, then there is hope.

In short, I would love for Mankind to set foot on Mars. I want an actual human being to get out of his lander, plant a flag on the surface, look upon his surroundings and wonder and say (if only to himself), “Holy shit, I’m on Mars!” This is something that no probe or robot can do, and it is something that we can all understand, and imagine that we are there too. It becomes something transcendent, in a way, that we all share. We can say that we went to Mars, and feel a part of it.

But for all the stupendous expense, I pray that we get something more out of it. I hope we get Pan Am spaceliners and Hiltons in orbit. LunarDisney, and vacations in space. Factories in space where pollution is just insulation. High tech research labs in orbit. Farside observatories that reach into the depths of space and time. I want the Mars mission to force the creation of private enterprise in space. Because I want to go, and the government will never make it cheap enough for me.

Over in the comments, I have been getting back in the game as it were, reentering the great game of blogging.

Ross made the perceptive comment that Social Security taxes and payroll taxes are way too high. (Of course, all taxes are way too high...) And also that the burden of these taxes falls largely on the the lower reaches of the income scale. When you add income and payroll taxes together, according to Ross' numbers it means that we already have, effectively, a flat tax.

Ross, being a liberal, draws exactly the wrong conclusions from this insight. (Ross, I don't think an unbiased observer would include you in "us poor folks" any more than me, or even Johno for that matter.)

So, the various income groups in this country end up paying about the same percentage of their income to the government - just under a third. That's sick. It's even more sick when you realize that that percentage only includes direct taxes on income. Both the rich and the poor pay significantly more than that. The rich get nailed on investment taxes, and on luxury taxes. The poor get nailed on FICA, sales taxes and sin taxes. Everyone gets nailed on taxes on corporations that affect the costs of goods and services. It is not an exaggeration to say that most Americans pay somewhere around half of their income in taxes to the government. Only the very rich and the very poor escape this.

Ross says:

Super-kean-fine, government revenue needs to drop. I say we start with the folks at the bottom.

No, we reduce taxes for everyone. Nothing else is fair. No one deserves to have their tax burden completely relieved while others continue to pay. We are all citizens.

Elections are bought and paid for by people in the top income brackets. Explain to me why they shouldn't be responsible for most of the bills when they come due.

First, because that's not true. And second, we're all citizens, equal under the law.

As outlined in the posting, we already have a flat tax system when you take the social security system into account. Poor folks pay it, rich folks don't.

Yes, but a singularly stupid, Byzantine and labor intensive flat tax that has uncounted loopholes, exceptions and complicated rules. A flat tax system that wastes millions of man hours and probably billions of dollars in compliance costs. If it actually was a 30% flat tax, it would be a reasonable law with the rate set too high.

Bottom line is, you either favor a progressive system of taxation or you don't. Right now we use what is effectively a flat tax system, but we pretend it's progressive.

Only the mildest from of progressive (regressive) taxation is acceptable. Parts of the current tax structure are flat taxes, parts are not. The complexity of the system is one of its greatest flaws.

So you don't have a problem with a guy making 25k a year paying 5k in federal taxes, while a guy making 100k a year pays 20k?

That 5k means everything to the guy making 25k a year. He can't afford a damn thing in his life. You either think that's a situation that should be addressed, or you don't.

No, I don't. The $500k guy makes five times as much, pays five times as much. That's fair. If, every time anyone in this country earns a fiver, he gives one dollar to the government, that's fair. Naturally, the people who earn more will pay more. You can't say, "but that other guy really, really needs it." I really need that $20k. It's not exactly chickenfeed to me, or to you. However, I am willing to largely relieve him of the burden of paying taxes, so long as he follows exactly the same rules as me.

One other thing -- GOP loves to talk about distributing the "burden" of taxes. How about the distribution of "pain" in an economy like this one? Do you think the pain of a shit economy should be evenly distributed too?

Despite much wailing, the economy even in the recent recession was not bad by historical standards. And it is not right to hit someone in the head just because the guy next to him has a headache.

I have never argued that everyone should pay the same amount of taxes, merely that the rules should be uniform and simple. In a just society, the same rules apply to everyone. This includes taxation. If someone making $50k pays 20%, and someone making $1m pays 20%, that's fair. Seeing as all the SS revenue goes into the general fund anyway, it should be eliminated. Sales taxes should never be deployed on a Federal level, as they are a little too regressive even for me.

One Federal tax for individuals. Flat rate, 20% or less, with deductions for yourself, spouse, children, mortgage interest and any money put into savings like 401k. Same rules for everyone, but the deductions would benefit the lower income earners proportionally more. Fair, but would not penalize marriage or homeownership, or investment. And when you factor in the deductions I mentioned, the lowest income earners would pay a lower effective percentage.

If I was only paying $20k in taxes, it would be an extra $20k in my pocket. I could do a lot with that. You'd want to structure the deductions to more or less zero out the taxes of those making less than about 25k. Though no one should pay no taxes, there should be a limit - even as low as a couple hundred dollars - but everyone should pay. But, for the guy making $500k, those same deductions would effect his tax burden much less proportionally. He'd actually be paying close to the 20%.

And in any event, fairness, to me, is largely based on being under the same rules. In a game of basketball, fairly refereed, I would get my ass kicked by Michael Jordan. That doesn't mean I'm being discriminated against, screwed by the system, or otherwise abused. And, to bring in another point I raised in the comments to another post, the tax withholding system has got to go. The tax-withholding scheme is the only thing that keeps us from a revolution. It was implemented in WWII as a means for getting money into the war machine more efficiently. But its primary effect has been to confuse the public on the nature of the effect of taxation. Instead of writing a check to the government for taxes every year or even every quarter, many people get the delicious feeling of receiving a big check from the treasury, like the Treasury is the fairy godmother or something.

Even though I know how terribly much I give to the gubmint, on an emotional level I'm still thinking, "Cool, $800!" It is the government giving back some of the money it took -without even paying me interest.

It makes the tax process relatively painless. But it shouldn't be, as a practical matter. Writing a check for 30% of your income on April 15 would wake most people up to the reality of taxation. Even for those on the lower end of the scale, that's likely larger than any check they've ever written before. It's easy to approve of government plans to spend money when it's spending money that you never had any real perception of having, since it was never in your bank account, never earned you interest, etc.

The central fact is that it is wrong to pay half your income in taxes. It is wrong that we have this completely fubared tax system that takes even intelligent non-tax attorneys or CPAs hours of skull sweat and worry to comply with. It is wrong that the IRS can screw with your life, and the burden of proof is on you, not the government. You have to prove your innocence! And because the tax code is some complex, it is easy for self serving lobbyists and politicians to fiddle with it for their own purposes. Sick, sick, sick, all of it.

We cannot legislate equality, and it is foolish to attempt it. Especially with the tax code. The most we can hope for is to create a fair system, where everyone has to obey the same rules, and let them have at it. Some, due to hard-won skills or God given talents, will do well, and make millions. Others, due to lack of foresight, deficit of ambition, or lower than average intelligence will do less well. Some people will manage to do both. So let it be. Take a buck out of every five they make, whether they're going up the scale or down.

In the tradition of our foreparents, it is time to make resolutions that I will break or ignore by the end of the month. So, here are my 2004 resolutions:

• Try that new South Park Anorexia diet the kids are talking about, and lose about fifty pounds.
• Conquer France
• Purchase several handguns, and send lots of pictures of them to Ross.
• Convince Mrs. Buckethead that we need - solely for Sir John the-in-great-danger-of-falling-behind- his-peers-in-video-game-kickassitude's sake - really, really need to buy a game console.
• Remember all the embarrassing stories I can so Drew's wedding reception will be extra, extra fun when I give the toast. Problem here, though, is that I was just as drunk as he was, and my memory is a little hazy.
• Purchase a large, American made SUV. Something like a suburban. Send time-stamped pictures of me filling up the tank several times a day to Ross.
• Complete, and hopefully publish, a book.
• Not mess up my son's head too much. Have to save some for his teen years.
• Build the Me- 262 model that's been sitting on my bookshelf unassembled since 1997. *
• Produce more offspring.
• Learn to crochet. Not.
• Spend at least one more hour this year learning to play the base.

Of all these resolutions, I think I might have a chance with the last one.

* repeat